Supreme Court case on whether the government can ban guns for domestic violence abusers. Discussion on historical traditions, confusion in lower courts, and disarming individuals based on their actions. Use of historical racist gun laws, mismatch in reasoning for Second Amendment scope, and balanced approach for rights and safety. Potential overhaul of methodology and alternative tests for Second Amendment claims. Open cases and challenges regarding sensitive places and classes of persons.

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases about social media and the First Amendment. The cases involve questions surrounding when and whether a public official’s social media activity constitutes state action subject to First Amendment constraints—and if so, whether they can block individuals from their social media pages. In this episode, David Cole of the ACLU and Professor Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law join to break down the arguments in both cases, discuss the claims being made, and how the outcomes of the cases could contribute to further defining the scope of speech rights online. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.   Resources:   Lindke v. Freed, Oral Argument (CSPAN)  O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, Oral Argument (CSPAN)  Eugene Volokh, When Is Government Official's Blocking Commenter from Social Media Page "State Action"?, Volokh Conspiracy (June 2022)  David Cole / Brief of the ACLU et al in support of respondents, O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier  David Cole / Brief of ACLU et al in support of petitioner, Lindke v. Freed    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

This week we are sharing an episode from our companion podcast, Live at the National Constitution Center. In this episode, prize-winning historians Kate Masur, author of Until Justice Be Done: America’s First Civil Rights Movement, from the Revolution to Reconstruction, and Dylan Penningroth, author of the new book Before the Movement: The Hidden History of Black Civil Rights, explore the central role of African Americans in the struggle for justice and equality long before the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Resources:  Kate Masur, Until Justice Be Done: America’s First Civil Rights Movement, from the Revolution to Reconstruction (2022)  Dylan Penningroth, Before the Movement: The Hidden History of Black Civil Rights (2023)  Article IV, Section 2: Movement Of Persons Throughout the Union, Privileges and Immunities Clause, National Constitution Center’s Interactive Constitution  14th Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause, National Constitution Center’s Interactive Constitution  Dylan Penningroth, The Claims of Kinfolk: African American Property and Community in the Nineteenth-Century South (2003)  Kate Masur, An Example for All the Land: Emancipation and the Struggle over Equality in Washington, D.C (2010)  Brief of Professors of History and Law as Amici Curia in Support of Respondents, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard and UNC   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Presidential historians Sidney Milkis, Barbara Perry, and Stephen Knott discuss the demagogic nature of the American presidency. They explore the evolution of the presidency, the impact of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, and the rise of Donald Trump. The podcast also explores reforms, communication styles, and the relationship between Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian traditions. The speakers propose restoring power to intermediary institutions and embracing federalism.

In its most recent round of redistricting, the South Carolina legislature changed the demographic of a congressional district, resulting in a number of Black voters being moved to a different district. Challengers argued that the state violated the 14th Amendment by unlawfully racially gerrymandering the district; while lawmakers countered that political, not racial, factors motivated the redistricting. Election law experts Rick Hasen of UCLA Law and Jason Torchinsky of the Holtzman Vogel law firm, join National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to break down this week’s oral arguments in the case, discuss the claims being made, and how the Court might evaluate them. Resources: Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP (oral argument audio / transcript) Brief of Amicus Curae Nancy Mace, et al, in support of appellants (Jason Torchinsky, counsel of record) Brief of Amicus Curae the National Republican Redistricting Trust in support of appellants (Holtzman Vogel, counsel of record)  “The Supreme Court upholds the provision prohibiting racial gerrymandering,”NPR Interview with Richard Hasen (June 2023) Richard Hasen, A Real Right to Vote: How a Constitutional Amendment Can Safeguard American Democracy (forthcoming 2024) “Redistricting in Alabama and the Voting Rights Act—Part 2,” We the People podcast (Oct. 2022) “Recapping Allen v. Milligan: The Court Upholds Section 2 of the VRA,” We the People podcast (June 2023)  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

Supreme Court heard arguments on the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's funding structure, potential effects on the administrative state, economy, and markets. Constitutional law scholars analyze the case, central questions, and funding comparisons. Influence of court on appropriations bills discussed, as well as the role of customs service. Arguments about historical analogues, accountability, and governing principle in deciding future cases.

Adam Liptak and Sarah Isgur join Jeffrey Rosen to preview the Supreme Court's October 2023 term, discussing major cases on the right to bear arms, the future of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the First Amendment and social media, and more.

Scholars discuss religious liberty in America, debating religious exemptions to laws and the interpretation of the establishment and free exercise clauses. They explore court cases on religious exemptions and freedom of speech, including the role of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The podcast also reflects on Constitution Day and the importance of protecting freedom of religion, highlighting the significance of recognizing the religion clauses on Constitution Day.

Panel discusses challenges of free expression on college campuses. Highlights Mahoney case where cheerleader's post sparked debate on free speech in schools. Explores evolving nature of campus speech battles and threats to academic freedom. Discusses sensitivity around phrase 'both sides' and challenges in fostering diversity of viewpoints. Speaker shares personal experience facing opposition in classroom.

This summer, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved legislation that would attempt to set ethics rules for the U.S. Supreme Court and a process to enforce them, including rules for transparency around recusals, gifts, and conflicts of interest. The bill, which still requires full Senate approval, is the latest in a series of proposals and attempts to reform or improve the Supreme Court in recent years. In this episode of We the People, we discuss various proposals to reform ethics rules surrounding the Supreme Court; how and whether these proposals could go into effect; and what the enforcement mechanisms could be. Law professors Daniel Hemel of NYU Law and Daniel Epps of Washington University School of Law join host Jeffrey Rosen.   Resources:  S.359 - Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2023 (Sen. Whitehouse)  S.325 - Supreme Court Ethics Act (Sen. Murphy)  Daniel Epps and Ganesh Sitaraman, “The Future of Supreme Court Reform” (2021)  Daniel Hemel, “Can Structural Changes Fix the Supreme Court?” (2021)   Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.